Power and Sample Size for Longitudinal Models in R -- The longpower Package and Shiny App
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal studies are ubiquitous in medical and clinical research. Sample size computations are critical to ensure that these studies are sufficiently powered to provide reliable and valid inferences. There are several methodologies for calculating sample sizes for longitudinal studies that depend on many considerations including the study design features, outcome type and distribution, and proposed analytical methods. We briefly review the literature and describe sample size formulas for continuous longitudinal data. We then apply the methods using example studies comparing treatment versus control groups in randomized trials assessing treatment effect on clinical outcomes. We also introduce a Shiny app that we developed to assist researchers with obtaining required sample sizes for longitudinal studies by allowing users to enter required pilot estimates. For Alzheimer's studies, the app can estimate required pilot parameters using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Illustrative examples are used to demonstrate how the package and app can be used to generate sample size and power curves. The package and app are designed to help researchers easily assess the operating characteristics of study designs for Alzheimer's clinical trials and other research studies with longitudinal continuous outcomes. Data used in preparation of this article were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (adni.loni.usc.edu).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.279 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.160 | 0.049 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".